Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Crisis in the Middle East and the Next Great Crisis in the Middle East [Paperback]

Ali Ansari (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: July 3, 2007

Iran refuses to relent in developing nuclear technology, despite U.N. sanctions. Rumors persist that Israel is drawing up plans for military strikes. Neither the emboldened Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad nor the embattled President Bush has relented in his war of words. How did we get here? Iran expert Ali Ansari sets the current crisis in the context of a long history of mutual antagonism. From the overthrow of Mosaddeq in 1953 to the hostage crisis in 1979 and, more recently, the Gulf War and the War in Iraq, both Iranian and American politicians have forged conflicting narratives about an “evil empire” lying half a world away-resulting in a mutual mistrust that may ultimately lead to war.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Preoccupied by Iraq, America paid little attention to its vastly larger and wealthier neighbor until Iran announced resumption of its nuclear program in the past year. This scholarly but lucid account by a prominent British historian begins with the Persian empire's 19th-century decline, as it lost territory to Russia and economic independence to Britain. Iran-American relations remained friendly until after WWII, when the U.S. aligned with British policy. After Mohammad Mosaddeq nationalized his nation's oil industry, the CIA engineered his 1953 overthrow—an event remembered in Iran as an outrage similar to Pearl Harbor. There followed 25 years of rule by Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, who sent an avalanche of oil money to the U.S. to finance a high-tech military force that proved useless in the revolution that ousted him. Humiliated by the revolutionists' 1979 takeover of our embassy, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during the brutal 1980–1988 Iran-Iraq war. As vividly as he portrays American blunders, Ansari does not ignore Iran's tortured politics and its national myth of victimization. American readers may wince at Iran's wildly distorted view of Western culture, but those who persist will realize the enormous barriers to understanding that both nations face. (Aug.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

About the Author

Ali M. Ansari is a highly regarded specialist in the field of Iranian history and politics. Currently a member of the Modern History faculty at the University of St. Andrews, he holds a doctorate from the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London. He has written for periodicals, including the Financial Times and the Independent (London). This is his third book. He lives in Fife, Scotland.

Product Details

• Paperback: 304 pages
• Publisher: Basic Books (July 3, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0465003516
• ISBN-13: 978-0465003518
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.1 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 7.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (18 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #634,608 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Thorough - if imbalanced - history offers expert background, January 8, 2007

By 

Rolf Dobelli "getAbstract" (Switzerland) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Crisis in the Middle East (Hardcover)

This slightly convoluted book provides tremendous background to help advanced readers understand the complex motives and machinations that shape U.S.-Iranian relations. Unfortunately, professor Ali Ansari has a definite point of view that affects his presentation about Iran's stated nuclear threats and terrorist financing, even as he chides the "trigger-happy Americans" in Iraq. He may be right that the U.S. missed several opportunities to reduce tensions with Iran, but he admits that Iran's overtures were oblique and unpopular. His baroque interpretations of Iran's motives and the relationships among its factions is dizzying, and open to question - ultimately adding to Iran's mystery. Despite its biases, we consider this important for those seeking a comprehensive overview of Iran and its complex U.S. relations. The book goes well beyond any discussion available in the mass media.

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars A largely unorganized and unfocused rehashing of conventional wisdom, July 31, 2008

By 

Lee L. (Washington DC) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Crisis in the Middle East (Hardcover)

Although Confronting Iran has some merits (albeit only a few), the shortcomings of this book are what unfortunately stand out. Had I not just finished Trita Parsi's book Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, I would have reacted more favorably to Ansari's book, but at the end of the day, if you're only going to read one book concerning Iran and the U.S., there is absolutely no excuse to pick up Confronting Iran.

To begin, the title is somewhat misleading. It implies a history of the interaction between the U.S. and Iran, which is not necessarily what you'll find. A little more than halfway through the book, it seems as if the title was merely an attempt to grab attention in order to sell more copies since Iran is in the news as much as it is. A large part of the book focuses on domestic Iranian politics. This is only problematic because it strays from what the book allegedly sets out to do, and in any case, the author doesn't convincingly connect the domestic parts of the book to the overall theme. One of the highlights of the book is the context provided behind Ahmadinejad's election and that it was not the result of the Iranian public overwhelmingly choosing him, but rather that fraud was rampant, and that with four reformist candidates also running, the splitting of their votes helped a hard-liner come to office.

Something that made me wary of the domestic Iranian portions of the book though, is that Ansari's narrative of the relationship between the U.S. and Iran was nothing more than a rehashing of conventional wisdom. Again, had I not just read Parsi's book, this would not have seemed as glaringly obvious, but the contrast between the two books are nothing short of stunning. One of the reasons for this is the absence of much in the way of cited sources in Ansari's book. He seems like he's just taking the accepted narrative of these events and not really examining them. Parsi, on the other hand, went to great lengths to interview as many participants as possible, providing a much more complete picture of the subject in about the same amount of pages. I felt as if I learned something important on every page of Parsi's book. Confronting Iran however, couldn't be farther from that feeling. I felt as if I learned very little new information. Considering the complexity of the subject, it seems pointless to provide such a bland narrative.

The only real audience for this book is the type of person that knows absolutely nothing about the subject, and kind of wants to get a basic idea of how things unfolded. People well-versed in the subject will find very little of interest in this book unfortunately. Ansari deserves credit for trying to foster a dialogue or a greater understanding of the subject, but the bulk of the book fails to live up to these aims. The only place where he attempts to go beyond conventional wisdom is his comparison of some of the hard-line elements in Iran to the neoconservatives in the U.S. It's kind of a lazy comparison, that isn't really accurate in anything other than a very broad context. This approach unfortunately is characteristic of the book as a whole. For a book that is more or less the same length, Confronting Iran fails to even remotely compare to Parsi's Treacherous Alliance.

28 of 37 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars We've Made Some Serious Errors!, July 15, 2006

By 

Loyd E. Eskildson "Pragmatist" (Phoenix, AZ.) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Crisis in the Middle East (Hardcover)

Iran possesses the second-largest reserves of oil in the world, as well as the second largest natural gas reserves. Thus, their importance is hard to overestimate.

U.S. recent involvement in Iran began with our participation in the overthrow of its democratically-elected leader on 8/19/53 because of his decision to nationalize the oil industry - with payment and the intent to retain most/all workers. Subsequently, we further aggravated our relationship by pushing for exempting U.S. citizens from Iranian laws, and our support for land reform as a defense against Communism.

In 1974 the U.S. signed a ten-year agreement to supply Iran with enriched uranium, while Iran planned to order 5 nuclear power plants from France. Meanwhile, the U.S. supported Shah eventually turned the populace against him by stifling dissent, and when the U.S. allowed the deposed Shah into the U.S. for medical treatment (Britain had prohibited), the U.S. began to be viewed as the Great Satan and the Iranian hostage situation followed.

Our alliance with and support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War became another problem, while U.S. political support for Iran was undermined by the Iran-Contra affair (weapons and parts to Iran for hostages being released in Lebanon and cash - the cash was then funneled to Nicaraguan Contras). The Vincennes affair (guided missile destroyer that negligently shot down an Iranian airliner), followed by our initial efforts to cover-up the error and Reagan's awarding the Captain a medal further soured our relationship.

Other problems included the Navy ship Stark - hit by an Iraqi missile, the U.S. initially blamed Iran and President Reagan made some very derogatory and inappropriate remarks aimed at Iranians), opposing a pipeline through Iran (made economic sense), refusing to allow Conoco to contract with Iraq because of Israeli lobbying, and the perception that U.S. foreign policy was made in Israel. (Bush I had complained in 1991 about the 1,000 Jews simultaneously lobbying Congress to allow American aid money to be spent enlarging settlements; his remarks punctured their effort, but he heavily lost Jewish counties in the next election. Currently many Christian fundamentalist goups also lobby for Israel.)

Relations improved late in the Clinton Administration when Secretary Albright expressed regret regarding our involvement in the 1953 regime change and supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Unfortunately, according to Ansari, the Iranians decided to wait for a Republican president to move forward.

Bush II immediately shifted into reverse by reworking old allegations about Iran's involvement in the '96 Khobar (Saudi Arabia) towers bombing in '96. (Clinton dropped the matter in light of positive developments, his belief that the evidence was weak, and Saudi Arabia's failure to cooperate.)

Nonetheless, after 9/11, Iran's President and others were among the first to offer condolences, and many citizens demonstrated against terrorists. Despite the U.S.'s rude approach, it was agreed to support rescue missions from Iranian soil, and Iran did arrest fleeing Taliban and al Qaeda (though they did refuse to turn them over to the U.S.)

This cooperation was followed by Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, and Israel's interception of a ship carrying arms from Iran to the Palestinian Authority. The result was that Iranian "hard-liners'" hand was strengthened. The Religious Council banned many Reformists (even incumbents) from running, and hard-liner Ahmedinejad was elected (made economic sense to the general public on the basis of his reform promises).

"Confronting Iran" closes with a summary of the nuclear standoff with the U.S. vs. Iran. Unfortunately the details are not clear; however, what is clear is that Iran was not without fault in this area. Regardless, Ansari makes a good point by stating that the U.S. has very few Iran experts, and rotating them out every three years is not a good idea.

Bottom Line: "Confronting Iran" provides a good understanding of the history of U.S.-Iran relations. However, it is sometimes hard to follow, due to sparse details and/or out-of-order material.